Microcarrier Cell Culture

Na+/H+ exchange subtype 1 inhibition during extracellular acidification and hypoxia in glioma cells

“…For pH i measurements, C6 cells were grown on macroporous gelatine microcarriers (van Wezel 1983; Nilsson 1988). Approximately 10 7 cells, 3 mL gelatine microcarriers, and 50 mL DMEM, supplemented with 5% FCS and penicillin/streptomycin (100 units/mL) were transferred into a silicon‐coated stirring flask.…”

Microspheres for Enzyme Immobilization

“…There are two basic strategies: (i) covalently linking a strongly charged surface moiety such as DEAE to a Surface Modification of Microcarrier neutral substrate (van Wezel, 1967); (ii) coating the surface with molecules promoting cell adhesion such as collagen, fibronectin, and synthetic peptides designed from the attachment supporting domains of extracellular matrix molecules (Ruoslahti & Pierschbacher, 1986;Varani et al, 1989;Varani et al, 1993). After appropriate surface modification, many matrix materials have been successfully applied in cell culture (Varani, 1985;Nilsson, 1989). …”

Expansion of mesenchymal stem cells using a microcarrier-based cultivation system: growth and metabolism

“…Since the initial phase of a microcarrier culture is usually the most critical stage in the culture cycle (Gebb et al, 1982;Nilsson, 1989), the conditions for seeding of MSCs on microcarriers should be optimized to increase the attachment efficiency. Possible routes for improvement are: varying the stirring regime; lowering the seeding volume; increasing the microcarrier concentration; and varying the initial pH and/or serum concentrations (Chun and Chung, 2001;Forestell et al, 1992;Nilsson, 1989). Because the initial attachment of cells to a substrate will affect their proliferation (Kong et al, 1999;Malda et al, 2003), a higher seeding efficiency can then subsequently result in higher cell yields after expansion.…”

“…This was also observed for porcine MSCs by Frauenschuh and coworkers, although in their study the morphology changed to a fibroblastoid shape during the adhesion process. As MSCs are anchorage-dependent, they attach to the positively charged Cytodex 1 microcarriers due to differences in charge (Nilsson, 1989). Considering the rounded morphology, the dextran-based microcarriers do not supply the optimal surface characteristics for proper attachment of goat MSCs.…”